Co-authored with Megan Norris
In a pivotal week for homeland security grant administration, two federal judges have ruled against the Department of Homeland Security’s attempts to condition emergency preparedness funding on immigration enforcement cooperation.
September 24, 2025: Senior U.S. District Court Judge William E. Smith, in a lawsuit brought by 11 states and the District of Columbia, permanently enjoined the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) from enforcing immigration-related conditions on 40 federal grant programs in State of Illinois, et al. v. Federal Emergency Management Agency.
September 30, 2025: U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy issued a temporary restraining order blocking FEMA from reallocating $233 million in Homeland Security Grant Program funds away from so-called “sanctuary” states in a related case (Illinois v. Noem).
While U.S. Government appeals are likely, the decisions, for now, resolve months of uncertainty for state and local emergency managers, fire departments, law enforcement agencies, and critical infrastructure operators who depend on federal homeland security grants for essential preparedness capabilities.
Administration Response: Strong Condemnation of “Judicial Overreach”
DHS and FEMA issued a statement condemning both judicial decisions, characterizing them as threats to national security and emergency preparedness.
Official DHS Statement
In a press release titled “DHS and FEMA Condemn Judicial Overreach Threatening National Security and Emergency Preparedness,” the administration stated Judge McElroy’s ruling “has gutted critical grant programs essential for equipping state and local leaders to combat escalating threats such as wildfires, floods, tornadoes, cyberattacks, and terrorism.”
The administration argued these reforms resulted from “a comprehensive review exposing rampant waste, fraud, and abuse in FEMA’s grant programs” and contrasted current policies with “the previous administration, which misused funds to bankroll luxury hotels for illegal immigrants, absurd climate change pet projects, and organizations with anti-American agendas.”
What Emergency Management Professionals Need to Know
Programs Affected
The two decisions impact 40 separate grant programs totaling nearly $3.5 billion in annual funding, including:
Emergency Response Programs:
- Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program (AFG, FP&S, SAFER)
- Emergency Management Performance Grant Program
- Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program
- National Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) Response System
Critical Infrastructure Security:
- Port Security Grant Program
- Transit Security Grant Program
- Intercity Passenger Rail Program
- State and Local Cybersecurity Grant Program
Counterterrorism and Public Safety:
- Homeland Security Grant Program (UASI, OPSG, SHSP)
- Nonprofit Security Grant Program
- Targeted Violence and Terrorism Prevention Grant Program
- Tribal Homeland Security Grant Program
Disaster Mitigation:
- National Dam Safety Program
- National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
- Emergency Food and Shelter Program
First Ruling: Permanent Injunction Against Immigration Conditions
Legal Background: How Immigration Conditions Were Imposed
The controversy began with President Trump’s January 30, 2025, Executive Order directing DHS to ensure “sanctuary jurisdictions” did not receive federal funds.
Timeline of Events:
- February 19, 2025: DHS Secretary Kristi Noem issued a memorandum titled “Restricting Grant Funding for Sanctuary Jurisdictions,” instructing DHS agencies to review all federal financial assistance awards and report compliance within 30 days.
- March 27, 2025: DHS revised standard terms and conditions governing all federal grants, adding provisions requiring state and local recipients to certify cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, including “joint operations” and “information sharing.”
- April 18, 2025: DHS issued revised grant terms that remain in effect, prohibiting programs that “benefit illegal immigrants” or “incentivize illegal immigration.”
- May 13, 2025: Twenty states and the District of Columbia filed suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
- June 6, 2025: FEMA Senior Official David E. Richardson submitted an affidavit stating DHS had decided contested conditions would not apply to 12 of the identified grants, with others under review.
- July 23, 2025: A second Richardson declaration stated DHS made a “final determination” that contested conditions would not apply to 40 grants listed in the amended complaint.
- July 25–August 1, 2025: Despite these assurances, DHS issued 24 Notices of Funding Opportunity (NOFOs), all including standard terms and conditions; six explicitly warning that immigration terms “may be material” and DHS “may take any remedy for noncompliance including termination.”
Court’s Rationale: Why Immigration Conditions Were Struck Down
Judge Smith found the contested conditions violated both the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Constitution’s Spending Clause on multiple grounds:
- Impermissibly Vague Standards
The court found DHS requirements for “cooperation,” “joint operations,” and “information sharing” provided no meaningful definition of compliance. Similarly, prohibitions on programs that “benefit illegal immigrants” or “incentivize illegal immigration” lacked clear standards, leaving states unable to determine compliance requirements.
- Unconstitutional Coercion Under Spending Clause
“The record shows that states rely on these grants for billions of dollars annually in disaster relief and public safety funds that cannot be replaced by state revenues,” Judge Smith wrote. “Denying such funding if states refuse to comply with vague immigration requirements leaves them with no meaningful choice, particularly where state budgets are already committed.”
The grants fund critical programs including:
- Disaster relief and emergency response
- Fire safety and firefighter training
- Dam safety inspections and maintenance
- Cybersecurity infrastructure
- Counterterrorism preparedness
- Emergency warning systems
- Arbitrary and Capricious Agency Action
The court found DHS’s implementation inconsistent and confusing. Despite multiple declarations that conditions wouldn’t apply to specific grants, DHS continued issuing NOFOs with immigration requirements, creating uncertainty for grant applicants and recipients.
Permanent Relief Granted
Based on these findings, the court:
- Declared the contested immigration conditions both arbitrary and capricious under the APA and unconstitutional under the Spending Clause
- Vacated the contested conditions entirely
- Permanently enjoined DHS and FEMA from enforcing the contested conditions against plaintiff states
Notably, the court cited the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. Casa, which restricted universal injunctions but “expressly left unaffected the APA’s command to ‘set aside’ unlawful agency action.”
Second Ruling: Blocking Fund Reallocation
Just days after Judge Smith’s permanent injunction, a separate legal challenge emerged when states discovered FEMA had announced significant funding cuts to states the administration identified as “sanctuary jurisdictions” and corresponding increases to states more aligned with the Trump administration’s policies.
According to court filings in Illinois v. Noem, the administration cut approximately $233 million from expected Homeland Security Grant Program allocations to states including Illinois, New York, and California with minimal substantive explanation. States alleged the cuts were politically motivated retaliation rather than based on legitimate grant criteria such as threat assessments or preparedness needs.
Judge Mary McElroy of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island granted a temporary restraining order blocking this reallocation, finding that states demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits and risk of irreparable harm.
Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul stated: “I am pleased with the court’s decision to block this chaotic and illegal attempt to coerce states into compliance with the president’s political agenda.”
California Attorney General Rob Bonta added: “California uses the grant funding at stake in our lawsuit to protect the safety of our communities from acts of terrorism and other disasters—meaning the stakes are quite literally life and death. This is not something to play politics with.”
Trump Reverses New York Counterterrorism Funding Cuts
Late Friday, October 3, President Trump intervened to restore $136 million in homeland security and counterterrorism funding to New York.
“I am pleased to advise that I reversed the cuts made to Homeland Security and Counterterrorism for New York City and State. It was my Honor to do so,” Trump announced on Truth Social Friday afternoon.
According to sources, Trump was only recently informed about the cuts, which had reduced New York’s allocation by 86%, and immediately ordered them reversed. A DHS spokesperson confirmed FEMA is “providing access to $136 million, bringing the State Homeland Security funding to $187 million to ensure it has the resources needed to counter and evolving threats.”
New York Governor Kathy Hochul credited Trump with the reversal: “I’m glad that @POTUS heard our call to reverse these cuts. That means $187 million for the NYPD, FDNY & first responders across the state that keep New Yorkers safe.”
The reversal came days after Hochul warned that cutting 86% of the state’s homeland security funding “serves only to make not just New York but all of America more vulnerable to terrorist attacks,” and after a federal judge blocked the withdrawal of $34 million in transit security funding, citing 9/11 and ongoing threats.
Questions remain about whether other states that experienced similar cuts will receive restored funding, and how this reversal interacts with pending court cases.
Impact on Emergency Management Community
In many states, the grant finding is now clear.
Immediate Effects
- Grant clarity restored in many states: State and local agencies can proceed with planned purchases, hiring, and activities under existing grant awards
- No immigration compliance required: Recipients are not required to certify cooperation with federal immigration enforcement as a condition of receiving homeland security grants
- Standard grant terms apply: Normal administrative requirements, reporting, and compliance obligations remain in effect
Real-World Relief for Grant Recipients
Emergency management officials in many states expressed relief at the decision. As one state emergency preparedness director wrote to coalition partners: “After many months of uncertainty and plenty of ups and downs, I’m excited to share some very good news… we are authorized to use the full amount of our Notice of Award. This means we can fully utilize our funding, continue moving forward with planned purchases and activities, and most importantly, ensure stability through the remainder of this grant year.”
This sentiment reflects the operational reality for thousands of emergency managers, firefighters, law enforcement personnel, and public health officials who depend on predictable federal funding streams to maintain preparedness capabilities.
Legal Analysis and Appeal Prospects
Expected Appeals Process
Legal experts anticipate the government will appeal Judge Smith’s permanent injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (Boston) with potential petition for Supreme Court review. Judge McElroy’s temporary restraining order is preliminary and a full hearing on the merits will follow. However, both court orders remain in effect during any appeal process, allowing grant programs to operate normally.
Broader Constitutional Questions
The cases raise fundamental questions about executive branch authority in federal grant administration:
Separation of Powers: Can the executive branch unilaterally impose policy conditions on grant programs established and funded by Congress without explicit statutory authorization?
Spending Clause Limits: Under what circumstances do funding conditions become unconstitutionally coercive, particularly when states depend on grants for critical public safety functions?
Administrative Law: What level of clarity and consistency must agencies provide when imposing new grant conditions, and what remedies are available when implementation is confused or contradictory?
Grant Program Priorities Under Current Administration
Despite the legal dispute, FEMA emphasized its commitment to eliminating waste and ensuring taxpayer dollars strengthen community resilience. The agency highlighted reforms including:
- Comprehensive vetting of grant recipients
- Enhanced accountability measures
- Focus on measurable preparedness outcomes
- Prioritization of direct community benefits over administrative overhead
- Elimination of funding for programs deemed outside core emergency management missions
Broader Implications for Federal Grant Administration
These cases raise important questions about executive branch authority to impose policy conditions on existing grant programs without congressional authorization. The court’s emphasis on clear standards, reasonable conditions, and avoiding coercion may influence future federal grant administration across agencies.
For the homeland security community, the decisions underscore the importance of stable, predictable grant programs that enable long-term planning and sustained capability development at state and local levels. Regardless of one’s views on immigration policy, members of both parties have constituents who depend on homeland security grants: fire departments, law enforcement agencies, emergency managers, and critical infrastructure operators. As such, there is broad consensus that emergency preparedness funding should flow based on risk, capability gaps, and demonstrated need rather than political considerations. The federal courts have reinforced this principle, at least for now.
As the cases proceed through appeals and the policy debate continues, homeland security professionals should focus on what they do best: protecting communities, building resilience, and ensuring effective response when disasters strike. The grants enabling this work – now restored to stable footing – represent years of bipartisan investment in America’s preparedness infrastructure.
Resources and Further Information
- Full court decision: Illinois v. FEMA ruling (PDF)
- FEMA grant programs: FEMA.gov/grants
- Legal analysis: Case No. 1:25-cv-00495, U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island
This article provides information on recent legal developments affecting homeland security grant programs. Grant recipients should consult with their legal counsel and state administrative agencies for guidance specific to their circumstances.